So it looks like we may be going into Syria (?)

[esmith]

You really don't understand the situation. If Assad was overthrown by the rebels, Assad loses control over the chemical stockpile scattered in various localities, thus leaving the door wide open for the rebels to take control, and we well know that many of them are affiliated with al-Queda. What is so difficult to understand here? This has been mentioned by quite a few M.E. experts.

Secondly, Obama does not need congressional permission to attack and downgrade Syria's military, and he has previously taken actions that weren't always popular. Plus, there are quite a few Republicans and Democrats that have said he should have attacked, and even though some would have screamed and hollered, nevertheless they would eventually get over it.

Finally, Obama's presidential hero is Lincoln, if one were to follow Obama's actions, they should note that he has used much of the same techniques that Lincoln did. Now, I'm talking about the real Lincoln here and not the fairy-tale "Lincoln" that so many believe it.

Lincoln was a compromiser who tried to encourage others to work out joint solutions-- except when he knew he had to dig in his heels for solidarity's sake. IOW, when backed into a corner, Lincoln would come out fighting. Obama has taken the same approach, sometimes being accused of "leading from behind", but when push-comes-to shove, watch out as I think we're going to see with this CR and debt limit fight.

Anyhow, it's rather obvious you really do not understand what's going on in the M.E. even on the most basic level, so I give up on you-- again.

You have your opinions and I have mine; However, you have made a statement that you need to clarify by proving what you have said is permissible under the Constitution. That statement is the one I have highlighted in RED. I will give you my argument and you can explain why I am wrong. Oh by the way Senator Obama agreed with me. I will use excerpts from LA Times

As candidate Obama recognized in 2007, the president needs congressional authorization for a military attack that is not related to an actual or imminent threat to the United States. What is happening in Syria is an ongoing atrocity. Tens of thousands of people have been killed — some, it appears, by the Bashar Assad government's use of chemical weapons. This is a moral outrage. But it is not a direct threat to the United States, and the Obama administration does not suggest otherwise.

When he was running for president in 2007, Obama, a former constitutional law professor, told reporter Charlie Savage that "the president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." That was an accurate description of U.S. law.

It is true that presidents — including Obama in the case of Libya two years ago — have ordered military action without congressional approval. The most notorious case is President Truman's unilateral decision to send U.S. troops to the Korean peninsula. But past presidential practice cannot amend the Constitution.

 

[metis]

The War Powers Resolution gives the president some limited power as Commander in Chief, and many presidents have used it, including Reagan. It does not defy the Constitution since there's no formal declaration of war.

 

[metis]

While I'm at it, let me state that I do believe it more likely that, if Putin hadn't kicked in with this possible solution, that Obama would have attacked Assad's forces, and I have no doubt this is what he would have been told he had to do. Why? Because he wouldn't have had a choice. To not do so would not only have seriously set back our M.E. policy since cowards garner no respect in that area of the world, but also because it would have been a political nightmare for the administration domestically.

For the administration to have put themselves out that far and then back off would send a message that no one should take him seriously, whether it be internationally or nationally. Also, the likes of Kerry and the Clintons would have essentially disowned him. Essentially, he would be sending a message even to his own party that he was nothing but a chicken-hawk. Plus we should remember that he went after bin-Laden, which was one heck of a strategic and political risk, and if he was willing to do that I would tend to feel that he would follow through on his and Kerry's threats. He would have had no choice.

 

[esmith]

The War Powers Resolution gives the president some limited power as Commander in Chief, and many presidents have used it, including Reagan. It does not defy the Constitution since there's no formal declaration of war.

I think you had better read the War Powers Act of 1973
I will give you the pertinent section here:

The key Section 1541(c) reads:

• (c) Presidential Executive Power as Commander-in-Chief; Limitation The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

Your comment many Presidents have done it before holds no water. It is time for Presidents to realize that they are not kings or dictators. They must abide by the Constitution.

 

[metis]

"The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto. It has been alleged that the War Powers Resolution has been violated in the past, for example, by President Clinton in 1999, during the bombing campaign in Kosovo. All incidents have had congressional disapproval, but none have had any successful legal actions taken against the president for alleged violations." -- War Powers Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[esmith]

"The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto. It has been alleged that the War Powers Resolution has been violated in the past, for example, by President Clinton in 1999, during the bombing campaign in Kosovo. All incidents have had congressional disapproval, but none have had any successful legal actions taken against the president for alleged violations." -- War Powers Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your link just disproved your argument.

is a federal law intended to check the president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of Congress. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution; this provides that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, "statutory authorization," or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

Your underlined section on notification is when the President commits the US military without authorization or an act of war. Please read your own reference that invalidates your assertion before using it as your argument.

 

[metis]

The War Powers Resolution has been controversial since it was passed. In passing the resolution, Congress specifically cites the Necessary and Proper Clause for its authority. Under the Necessary and Proper Clause, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Because the Constitution limits the President's authority in the use of force without a declaration of war by Congress, there is controversy as to whether the provisions of the resolution are consistent with the Constitution. Presidents have therefore drafted reports to Congress required of the President to state that they are "consistent with" the War Powers Resolution rather than "pursuant to" so as to take into account the presidential position that the resolution is unconstitutional...

Congress invoked the War Powers Resolution in the Multinational Force in Lebanon Act (P.L. 98-119), which authorized the Marines to remain in Lebanon for 18 months during 1982 and 1983. In addition, the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 1991 (Pub.L. 102–1) which authorized United States combat operations against Iraqi forces during the 1991 Gulf War, stated that it constituted specific statutory authorization within the meaning of the War Powers Resolution.
On November 9, 1993, the House used a section of the War Powers Resolution to state that U.S. forces should be withdrawn from Somalia by March 31, 1994; Congress had already taken this action in appropriations legislation. More recently under President Clinton, war powers were at issue in former Yugoslavia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, and Haiti, and under President George W. Bush in responding to terrorist attacks against the U.S. after September 11, 2001. "n 1999, President Clinton kept the bombing campaign in Kosovo going for more than two weeks after the 60-day deadline had passed. Even then, however, the Clinton legal team opined that its actions were consistent with the War Powers Resolution because Congress had approved a bill funding the operation, which they argued constituted implicit authorization. That theory was controversial because the War Powers Resolution specifically says that such funding does not constitute authorization." Clinton's actions in Kosovo were challenged by a member of Congress as a violation of the War Powers Resolution in the D.C. Circuit case Campbell v. Clinton, but the court found the issue was a non-justiciable political question.[citation needed] It was also accepted that because Clinton had withdrawn from the region 12 days prior the 90 day required deadline, he had managed to comply with the act.

After the 1991 Gulf War, the use of force to obtain Iraqi compliance with United Nations resolutions, particularly through enforcement of Iraqi no-fly zones, remained a war powers issue. In October 2002 Congress enacted the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Pub.L. 107–243 which authorized President George W. Bush to use force as necessary to defend the United States against Iraq and enforce relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions.

May 20, 2011, marked the 60th day of US combat in Libya (as part of the UN resolution) but the deadline arrived without President Obama seeking specific authorization from the US Congress, President Obama, however, notified Congress that no authorization was needed, since the US leadership was transferred to NATO, and since US involvement is somewhat limited. On Friday, June 3, 2011, the US House of Representatives voted to rebuke President Obama for maintaining an American presence in the NATO operations in Libya, which they considered a violation of the War Powers Resolution.

IOW, you're not the one making the rules, and even though the WPR is somewhat controversial, presidents have been using our military forces without a declaration of going to war going all the way back to Jefferson.

Therefore, your argument is not with me but with Congress and past practice going back for over 200 years.

 

[esmith]

Therefore, your argument is not with me but with Congress and past practice going back for over 200 years.

No my argument is with you since you are the one that said that the President has the right to use the military anytime he wants without approval from Congress. Note the key word here is anytime. Do you agree that the President does not have this right according to the Constitution and the WPA ? It is not what past Presidents have done it is what the Constitution plus the WPA says not what you, the President( past and present) and others think.

 

[metis]

Let me again quote this, which really is not that difficult to understand if one actually reads it with intent to try and actually understand it: "The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war."

It speaks for itself, and this is exactly how Congress and history has looked at it pertaining to the President has as Commander in Chief. My guess is that those who protestith with Obama on this probably said not one word of dissent when the Bush's and Reagan did it.

The End.

 

[esmith]

Let me again quote this, which really is not that difficult to understand if one actually reads it with intent to try and actually understand it: "The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war."

It speaks for itself, and this is exactly how Congress and history has looked at it pertaining to the President has as Commander in Chief. My guess is that those who protestith with Obama on this probably said not one word of dissent when the Bush's and Reagan did it.

The End.

Would you please explain under what circumstances can the President use military force without Congressional approval. The highlighted section of your above argument only specifies what the President MUST do after committing the military without Congressional approval. Now I still say the following is true: (copied from:
Does Obama need congressional approval to bomb Syria?

The U.S. Constitution says it's up to Congress to declare war and to fund the military. The 1973 War Powers Resolution allows presidents to deploy troops when there's a "national emergency" caused by an attack on the country or its possessions, but then gives the executive only 60 days to get congressional approval or withdraw troops. Presidents in the past have become engaged in conflicts without first checking with Congress and have stretched the definition of "national emergency.

Now directly from the War Powers Resolution Section 1541(c)

(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war , (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

Now explain to me according to the above what LEGAL means would Obama have to order a military strike against Syria. I could care less what other Presidents have done, we are discussing the LEGAL aspects. Now President Nixon vetoed this Resolution because he thought it limited his powers as Commander and Chief but his veto was overridden by Congress. If this does not convince you that the President was wrong (and even he said a President doesn't have the legal power to act as he was advocating doing) then for all piratical purpose we are at an impasse.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

Are we there yet?